On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:59:52 -0400, Chris Rebert wrote:
>> Surely that's going to be O(N**2)?
>> The OP asked for "simple", not "best", "most proper", or "fastest". My
> comment was intended to mean that the code was marginally *simpler*, not
> faster.
Fair enough, but he also asked for Pythonic, and while some people might
argue that "terrible performance" is Pythonic, I hope you wouldn't be one
of them! :)
If it soothes your ruffled sense of honour *wink*, I think your solution
with itertools.chain is probably the best so far.
--
Steven